What do you mean with the same "bits" ? If you mean the bits part described in the block header (see protocol specification in the bitcoin wiki) it is just the difficulty that is the same for 2016 blocks on a row. Yeah, just read 2 posts below the one you are quoting  . Sorry, didn't get enough sleep with the daytime change here in the netherlands  |
|
|
|
All. But almost certainly, all 1TX blocks over that period belong to the mystery miner, they all have the same "bits" for 10 or more blocks, not a single exception. BTW, that actually applies to all 1TX blocks since the beginning of the year. If other pools or miners produce 1TX blocks on rare occasions, I havent seen it this year.
What do you mean with the same "bits" ? If you mean the bits part described in the block header (see protocol specification in the bitcoin wiki) it is just the difficulty that is the same for 2016 blocks on a row. |
|
|
|
|
Without including tx, profit can still be his goal.
Assuming it's a botnet, he don't want people to notice the trojan/virus/whatever, and the little program must be as small as possible so doesn't download the complete blockchain to check the tx for validity. If he would download the blockchain, he would a very little more profit each block he finds, but he will find less blocks because more people would notice the trojan.
|
|
|
|
|
If you buy a bread at the supermarket for $1 but you have a $100 bill and the tax on the bread is 6%, is it fair to pay $6 tax on the bread?
You probably say no, but thats different because you put $99 back in you wallet.
But to make bitcoin more anonymous you transfer the $100 from one wallet to 2 new wallets, one with $1 for the supermarket and one with $99 still for you.
So if you have 2 wallets, one with $100 bill and one empty and buy the bread and put the $99 change in you other new wallet, do you have to pay $6 taxes?
|
|
|
|
% fees are not possible (or more correctly accurate) because the network has no idea what the amount of the transaction is.
I want to send you 5 BTC. 1% fee = 0.05 BTC. No problem right?
Well my input is 32 BTC. So is it 1% of 32 BTC? =0.32 BTC fee?
The outputs are 5 BTC and 27 BTC (change)? Is it 1% of the larger output, 1% of the smallest output, or 1% of the average output, or 1% of sum of the outputs?
I don't think I understand what the problem is here. Surely x% of every input? the fee would be paid by the entity making the transaction. x% of every input = x% of the sum of the inputs. In other words the outputs would have to add up to at most (100-x)% of the inputs. I'm not 100% sure, but I think it is done this way : If you mine a block you have 50 BTC on an address. If you want to pay someone 1 BTC the 50 BTC is split up to 1 and 49 BTC and send to 2 different addresses. The 1 BTC to the person you send it to, and the 49 BTC to a new address owned by you. The network doesn't know if you just sent 1 BTC to someone and kept 49 yourself or 49 BTC to someone and you kept 1 BTC. It is done this way to stay more anonymous. If the rule would be to pay 1% of all inputs, in this case 1% off 50 BTC, 0.5 BTC you would actually pay a little over 1% if you pay 49 BTC or you would pay 50% (very much) if you just pay the 1 BTC. |
|
|
|
Based on EMC's miner charts there is a 150-200 GH operator. The operator's GH fluctuates quite a bit, so I'm not sure what that would indicate.
Maybe he is mining using wind power? |
|
|
|
|
If the protocol would be changed so that a fee is mandatory or there is a minimum fee, what would be a good value?
At the moment a bitcoin is just a few euro or dollar, so minimum of 0.01 BTC sounds good. But if much more people are going to use it and the value of BTC is 1000 dollar, the minimum fee would be 10 dollar? A bit much if you want to buy one bread.
On the other hand, what would be a good percentage to pay for a transaction? 0.1% of the transaction value would be acceptable for something like a bread, but a bit much if you want to buy your house with BTC.
|
|
|
|
... as it's that someone just discovered a massive breakthrough in software/hardware hashing and/or decided to invest massively in it.
I would like that a lot! Very interesting idea to dream about, 1 GH/s on a normal CPU. |
|
|
|
I'm glad to see someone is willing to put in a little effort rather than crying for their mommy. Now we need ineededausername and his blockchain code..... What blockchain code is that? |
|
|
|
Also, to repeat my earlier question, could there be any significance to the out-of-order timestamps in blocks 171759 and 171760 other than indicating that the empty-block miner's nodes don't have synchronized clocks?
If it were an ordinary pool, it would indicate that there were too pools. Why? Is there any reason pool members should be expected to have well-synchronized clocks? Pool members just hash the data. The timestamp comes from the pool operator's software, not the members. It is possible big pools run on multiple servers that aren't exactly sync to the same time. |
|
|
|
|
Or just look at the block chain if something will be done with the blocks.
|
|
|
|
On the bitcoin.org site: Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority
To me it sounds a little bit strange to ask anyone to play authority. |
|
|
|
You can't really include transactions in the blocks without having more or less the full block chain available, which takes up a lot of drive space and RAM, which would make the bot much easier to detect. By handing out only the latest block's hash, the system is as close to stateless as it can be. Each zombie just needs that, and then it can create the rest alone.
I didn't think of that. So the calculation I did, about 1.7 seconds time each 10 minutes for break even profit for including transactions, is probably to little time for each client to do by itself. So even if the 'waste' of diskspace wouldn't matter it would be profit loss for a client that does including transaction itself. Getting more and more interesting in this thread |
|
|
|
If it truly was more worthwhile for him to add transactions, I believe he would be doing that. There are two possible reasons why he is not doing that. Either he can actually keep the miners less noticeable by doing this OR he is doing this with completely malicious intent, probably shorting BTC like hell at the same time. Neither option is good for the rest of us, we have a big problem here that requires immediate attention.
OR transactions on average are only worth 0.3% more than empty blocks. It simply isn't worthwhile to include transactions. If you were an employer and offered employees $100K just to show up for work and they pay for performance for another $3K max such that the deadbeat who simply shows up and takes a nap gets $100K and the person who kills themselves with stress gets $103K you likely will end up with a lot of workers taking a nap. If he doesn't use a pool to get the work and if blocks with transactions give at average 0.3% more profit, totaling 100.3% of what he now gets, he can spend 600 - (600 / 1.003) = 1.795 seconds each 10 minutes on each client to include the transactions to break even. If it takes less than 1.795 seconds it's more profit. If he has a pool server you can divide this time by the number of clients connected to this pool if the pool also does mining. If the pool doesn't do mining there is no lost at all, only more profit. |
|
|
|
|
Google for "MPBM bitcoin" gave me Modular Python Bitcoin Miner.
I have no idea why python won't run on an ARM device.
Maybe it uses some libraries that aren't available on ARM?
|
|
|
|
I am figuring it is a botnet. With botnets reaching past 1 million computers someone must have selected a group of computers with good GPU's in them. Imagine good GPU's in 1% of machines, breaking them off as a seperate botnet. Now run them at low levels, do not run them hard enough for fans to get aggressive or any slowdown. 10,000 machines could make 2TH ran slowly. The internet connection usage would be kept to a minimum by only getting the bare minimum information (no transactions) and relaying back only when a block is found. This could live under the radar on a machine for a long time if they did nothing else with the pwned machine. And for $3000 a day, they would not have to resort to any other uses.
Of course it could be 5000-50000 machines in play.... But this is what I think it is.
Requesting work from a pool with transactions or without transactions is the same amount of data for the clients. |
|
|
|
Going from the computer names in paste linked, it looks like all the machines are running windows. So this could be the work of a script kiddie and the recent windows rdp exploit.
I thought the recent RDP exploit was a mere DDoS, and proof of concept was done ~wednesday, far after it became known ... It's not even been "weaponized" yet, so kinda hard for that exploit ... Well, you never know if it was found earlier and kept secret to build a strong big botnet. Very much true, but still a denial of service exploit does not give full access ... So in this case it's not the case. On this webpage it says "Vulnerabilities in Remote Desktop Could Allow Remote Code Execution" |
|
|
|
Going from the computer names in paste linked, it looks like all the machines are running windows. So this could be the work of a script kiddie and the recent windows rdp exploit.
I thought the recent RDP exploit was a mere DDoS, and proof of concept was done ~wednesday, far after it became known ... It's not even been "weaponized" yet, so kinda hard for that exploit ... Well, you never know if it was found earlier and kept secret to build a strong big botnet. |
|
|
|
People lie all.the.fucking.time.
So, the members of this forum have potentially messed this guy's life up on hearsay. Sounds legit [/s]
I posted this thread to Facebook A friend of mine posted this in that thread "Hi Don, hope this is your real address, thank you for bringing this to our attention, it has turned out to be true and Daniel has admitted these crimes.
The matter is being dealt with by our HR Manager Julie Beckett.
Best Regards
Michael Boardman
IT Manager & SAP Administrator
Weston EU Ltd" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
